How To Correct The Imbalance In Custody Battles

[sepultallica]

i had posted a challenge in the challenges forum that was titled, women should not have the final say. i didnt get any takers on the challenge so im probably going to back out. I also had thought about it and I don’t think that I actually challenged anyone to what I had intended. ill post my thoughts here in hope of exchanging dialogue on the matter. here goes

 

 

here's the scenario: a male and female adult engage in consentual intercourse. both agree on the precautions that they will take to prevent a pregnancy. neither partner wants a pregnancy to result from the exchange. both are responsible, law-abiding citizens. the female becomes pregnant as a result of the intercourse.

 

up to the point of conception, the man was an equal participant. the woman is pregnant and the man is no longer physically need.

 

the woman is now faced with a decision of immense proportions that will affect her and the man for the rest of their lives. she can either have an abortion, or give birth to the child. the choice is hers and hers alone. the man can only add input (and sometimes not even that) but the woman is calling the shots. this is where the scales begin to tip uncontrollably in favor of the woman. the scales tip and in most cases, the man usually gets a raw deal.

 

so the woman has the luxury of making this decision on her own. deservedly so. she is the one that will have to endure nine months of the pregnancy, the pain, the suffering, and everything else that comes with giving birth. i dont know too many people that can argue that the woman shouldnt have absolute power in this case. she also has the power to not have the child. also a daunting decision and a dangerous one.

 

lets see what happens after the woman gives birth or has an abortion.

 

the woman has an abortion

the woman has to undergo a recovery period. usually not that long. if im not mistaken, a couple of days and usually with no permanent damage to organs.

 

on the other side, since the man had no say in the matter, he can only watch from the sidelines. if he wanted the woman to have an abortion then fine, all is well that ends well. if he had wanted the child (despite not wanting it prior to having sex) and the woman decides not to give birth, then the man is left with mental suffering. this can have a serious side effect on anyone. the woman may indeed experience this as well but not on the same level as the man would. the man had to sit there powerless while she has the abortion. men are suppose to be all tough and insensitive but deep down inside we're all wimps. except for me of course. this can seriously devastate a man. i consider this a serious blow to the man.

 

the woman decides to give birth

if the woman gives birth and the man wanted her to have the child, and he wants to be a part of the child's life, then he still faces some serious problems. if the couple live together and are content to raise the child together then all is well that ends well. that is of course, if they separate and they cannot come to an agreement on who who will have physical custody of the child. if the couple cannot decide on the logistics themselves and have to turn to the legal system, then the man is screwed. it doesnt matter if the man obtains the best lawyer on the planet, no judge will ever grant physical custody of a child to man when both parents are fit parents. this is not to say that there are laws that specifically favor women in these cases. on the contrary. i know of no statute in the california state family code, or any state for that matter, that specifically favors women over men when both parents are deemed as suitable parents. depending on the type of custody that is awarded to the woman, the man will have limited access to the child. access is further limited when the woman wants to relocate and the new home is remote. in many instances, the court will assign joynt physical and legal custody. but when one parent decides to relocate and joynt custody is no longer practical for both, the court will assign sole physical and sole legal custody. and usually to the woman. now the man has to suffer with not being able to see the child for long periods of time. needless to say, it is a devastating blow to the father. you compact this with the mandate from the court for the man to pay child support and you have yourselves the begining of the end. surely the responsible, law-abiding man would have paid the support without the prompting of the court but guess what, he now has to live with the humility of knowing that he was ordered to pay. and now people will think that he is a deadbeat parent and the court had to order him to pay support. The financial burden always impacts the man the worst. This of course pales in comparison to not seeing the child but it is a blow nonetheless.

 

in addition, the child is now forced to live without the father and this of course has the most significant consequences. the father is mature and is able to deal with the tragedy. but the child is not yet able to comprehend what is happening.

 

If the woman gave birth and the man did not want the birth to go through, then you have an all new set of problems. The man will continue his life paying for the child when he wanted no involvement. Obviously, the man will not contest the custody and he will not be a part of the child’s life but what happens when later in life, he has a change of heart? He decides he wants to be a part of the child’s life. The least he could hope for is visitation rights. He would have given up the option for joint custody long ago. But since he is still paying support, he may still have some legal footing. This is not likely since when determining custody status, the court always considers the child’s best interests as a priority. Introducing the father to the child could only make things worst for the child. Not to mention that the woman would have likely moved on and found another father figure. You can also rest assured that when the child is old enough, the mother will undoubtedly tell the child that his original father did not want him born. No matter how you paint this, the child will grow to hate the father. Another blow to the father.

 

Surely, the decision to give birth or abort must remain with the mother. There is no way around it. But by giving birth, is the mother entitled to hold the best cards afterwards? Should the man necessarily have to suffer the remainder of the child’s life just because he was not capable of giving birth? I think not. The woman has to endure the pregnancy and labor. For that she gets to chose whether to give birth or have an abortion. After that, everything should go down the middle. Things shouldn’t be such a landslide. The man should have more power in this than he does. I will outline some things that can be done to even things up in the next post.

 

I close this post with one final thought, it is not sufficient to say that the woman needs significant compensation forgiving birth and raising the child. It is not significant to say that she endured much and she should have the power. For any loving father caught in this predicament would gladly say, I would have given birth if my body was capable. I would have endured the pain only to have an equal chance at raising the child. I would have gladly raised the child and have asked anything of the mother. I would not have placed any responsibility on her that she did not ask for.

 

I look forward to thoughts and comments on this subject. I did not write this with the intention of flaming women. I have not experienced this scenario. I do not have children. I can only imagine the torment that men must endure under these circumstances. I wrote this post in an hour so I may not have covered everything.

[john5746]

Well, it would be nice if most men were as thoughtful. If so, then we must be serious about sexual relations and the impact from them.

 

Women get a raw deal from sexual relations - more exposure to disease, social stigmatism, pregnancy. I think in most cases, a woman having an abortion would have more psychological wounds than the man.

 

The man should shoulder some of the financial support, even if he wanted an abortion, because you cannot force a woman to have an abortion for economic reasons.

[Lance]

I was just thinking.... Some people think that becoming homosexual has something to do with a lack of a real father figure. Could the “gay movement” have something to do with the rise of single mothers? I’m not trying to start any arguments I’m just speculating.

 

When did the amount of single parents really start to rise?

[YT2095]

When did the amount of single parents really start to rise?

I would imagine sometime during either of the world wars. Lots of "daddies" didn`t come home

[sepultallica]

ill post the second part of this.

 

so when the girl learns that she is pregnant...

 

if the man did not want the woman to have the child and she decides to give birth, the man should be able to walk away from the woman and child and have absolutely no legal responsibility. this should be because the woman already gets to decide whether to keep it or not. the man has no say in it and as such, is placed in a comprimising situation. by this token, if the man later wants to be a part of the child's life he would not be eligible.

 

when there is a dispute over custody of the child and both parents are deemed fit parents by the state; and when joynt physical custody is not an option. the parent that does not obtain custody should not be forced to pay support by the court. this should be because not only are we taking the child away from one parent, we penalize him/her for it by making him/her pay. not only is the other parent get the child, but they get to live off the other unfortunate parent. we should give the parent that did not get custody, the benifit of the doubt. i believe that the obligation to pay support should be a moral one and not a legal one in this instance. it is not sufficient to say that the parent that won custody now has the burden to financially raise the child on his/her own. for the other parent would surely say that he/she would raise the child without asking for anything in return from anyone.

 

more to come.

[john5746]

The women has the right to abort ONLY because the fetus is inside her body. So, the man has no say in the matter, legally.

 

Custody should be determined for the welfare of the child, not to punish anyone. Both parents should have financial obligations for their children. In the US, women are increasingly earning money on par with men. They should be treated the same as men when child support is rendered.

 

All things being equal, I think the women should get custody. She carried the child and delivered. She will more likely be the best parent, at least in the first years(Again, if all things are equal).

[sepultallica]

The women has the right to abort ONLY because the fetus is inside her body. So' date=' the man has no say in the matter, legally.

 

Custody should be determined for the welfare of the child, not to punish anyone. Both parents should have financial obligations for their children. In the US, women are increasingly earning money on par with men. They should be treated the same as men when child support is rendered.

 

All things being equal, I think the women should get custody. She carried the child and delivered. She will more likely be the best parent, at least in the first years(Again, if all things are equal).[/quote']

 

that's the worst defence i have ever heard. by default youre saying the woman should get custody. how can you say shell be the best parent? how can you say all things being equal and turn around and say women should get the child by default.

 

"the woman has the right to abort only because the fetus is in her body." and for that, she gets to decide whether the child will be born or not. she shouldnt have to be pampered until the kid is 18 just because she gave birth. she shouldnt automatically get custody for that.

[john5746]

that's the worst defence i have ever heard. by default youre saying the woman should get custody. how can you say shell be the best parent? how can you say all things being equal and turn around and say women should get the child by default.

 

All men are dogs - that is a worse defense

 

All Things being equal means, that if there is no deciding factor to determine who should be the parent, and assuming the child can't be shoved back and forth between each parent 50% of the time, the tie should goto the women IMO.

 

she shouldnt have to be pampered until the kid is 18 just because she gave birth. she shouldnt automatically get custody for that.

 

Did I say she should be pampered? If the child support is too much in some cases, that should be reduced. That doesn't mean ALL men shouldn't have to pay ANY support.

[sepultallica]

All men are dogs - that is a worse defense

 

All Things being equal means' date=' that if there is no [b']deciding factor [/b] to determine who should be the parent, and assuming the child can't be shoved back and forth between each parent 50% of the time, the tie should goto the women IMO.

 

 

 

Did I say she should be pampered? If the child support is too much in some cases, that should be reduced. That doesn't mean ALL men shouldn't have to pay ANY support.

 

i know what all things being equal means. what youre saying is that when it comes down to it, lets give the woman the advantage.

 

as for the support, what do you say to a couple when both are fit parents, both want custody and sole physical custody must be awarded to someone. the parent that didnt recieve custody now has to pay support where if you ask him/her about support, they would likely say that if they had obtained custody, they wouldnt demand support.

[Coral Rhedd]

Sepultallica, you seem to have some confusion about how child custody is decided in the United States and how it is supposed to be decided.

 

The standard (ideal) is that the best interests of the child should prevail. There is little consensus as to what environment represents the best interest of the child.

 

The reality is that nowadays most parents agree to a joint custody arrangement of some sort. The poor child is usually used as a pawn shoved around on a chessboard that represents the economic and emotional desires of the parents. If there are disputes about the financial arrangements the parent who wants the child's company the most is most likely to give up more financially in order to not risk losing say over the child's upbringing, schooling, discipline, religious education, etc.

 

I will leave it to you to figure out which parent usually cares the most. I will leave it to you to consider whether or not, if you were a child you would like to be shuffled from one home to another twice a week.

 

To be honest you sound rather young so perhaps you can put yourself in the child's shoes. Good luck to you in all your future endeavors with women.

[sepultallica]

Sepultallica' date=' you seem to have some confusion about how child custody is decided in the United States and how it is [b']supposed[/b] to be decided.

 

The standard (ideal) is that the best interests of the child should prevail. There is little consensus as to what environment represents the best interest of the child.

 

The reality is that nowadays most parents agree to a joint custody arrangement of some sort. The poor child is usually used as a pawn shoved around on a chessboard that represents the economic and emotional desires of the parents. If there are disputes about the financial arrangements the parent who wants the child's company the most is most likely to give up more financially in order to not risk losing say over the child's upbringing, schooling, discipline, religious education, etc.

 

I will leave it to you to figure out which parent usually cares the most. I will leave it to you to consider whether or not, if you were a child you would like to be shuffled from one home to another twice a week.

 

To be honest you sound rather young so perhaps you can put yourself in the child's shoes. Good luck to you in all your future endeavors with women.

 

i understand that the child's best interests are the deciding factor in most cases. and im not debating joynt custody in any way. im debating sole physical custody which is entirely different.

 

is the "you sound rather young" line an attempt to offend me? i dont see how that can have any relevance to anything here. if you dont like what im saying then post some counterpoints not cheap shots.

[Coral Rhedd]

here's the scenario: a male and female adult engage in consentual intercourse. both agree on the precautions that they will take to prevent a pregnancy. neither partner wants a pregnancy to result from the exchange. both are responsible' date=' law-abiding citizens. the female becomes pregnant as a result of the intercourse.

[/quote']

 

Anyone that doesn't understand that sex between a man and woman may result in pregnancy -- barring things like sterilization or years past menopause -- should not engage in sex.

 

Anyone that has sex casually with someone they cannot necessarily trust to use the agreed upon birth control -- should have no complaint if pregnancy is the result.

 

Anyone who engages in sex without thinking what his/her desired choices are should pregnancy result and discussing them beforehand with said partner, is irresponsible.up to the point of conception, the man was an equal participant. the woman is pregnant and the man is no longer physically need.

 

the woman is now faced with a decision of immense proportions that will affect her and the man for the rest of their lives. she can either have an abortion, or give birth to the child. the choice is hers and hers alone.

 

For people who deal in good faith with each other, this decision should ideally be a mutual one, but simple biology makes it obvious that a man takes a risk of the woman decided to have an abortion against his will or to bear the child against his will. To try to change this would only prove that "hard cases make bad law."

 

the man can only add input (and sometimes not even that) but the woman is calling the shots. this is where the scales begin to tip uncontrollably in favor of the woman. the scales tip and in most cases, the man usually gets a raw deal.

 

No the man gets the deal he deserves if he did not determine mutually with his partner beforehand how the two of them would handle the possible pregnancy.

 

so the woman has the luxury of making this decision on her own. deservedly so. she is the one that will have to endure nine months of the pregnancy, the pain, the suffering, and everything else that comes with giving birth. i dont know too many people that can argue that the woman shouldnt have absolute power in this case. she also has the power to not have the child. also a daunting decision and a dangerous one.

 

It is arguable that pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion to the woman. Either way, you are right. The woman holds more power in this instance but also takes more risks.

 

the woman has an abortion

the woman has to undergo a recovery period. usually not that long. if im not mistaken, a couple of days and usually with no permanent damage to organs.

 

Never had one so I can't say for sure but I have read that if a woman has a number of abortions or one botched one then her future fertility may be at risk.

 

on the other side, since the man had no say in the matter, he can only watch from the sidelines. if he wanted the woman to have an abortion then fine, all is well that ends well.

 

This presumes a number of things. It presumes that the man will never feel a pang of conscience at the woman's choice. Although she may have chosen the abortion, the sex act created the child/fetus (use whatever terminology you think is accurate) and that he is responsible for engaging in this act and creating a unwanted child/fetus.

 

This also presumes that he will never wake up in the middle of the night and wonder what sort of person that child/fetus might have become.

 

This also presumes that if he later wished to have a child and is unable to he will not feel a pang for the lost option.

 

if he had wanted the child (despite not wanting it prior to having sex) and the woman decides not to give birth, then the man is left with mental suffering.

 

Exactly.

 

this can have a serious side effect on anyone. the woman may indeed experience this as well but not on the same level as the man would. the man had to sit there powerless while she has the abortion.

 

This presumes that just because a woman choose an abortion she will have no regrets. Please see the list of regrets above that a man may have. The woman could have the abortion and still experience regrets. This is what made me think that you are young. You see these choices as so cut and dried.

 

men are suppose to be all tough and insensitive but deep down inside we're all wimps. except for me of course. this can seriously devastate a man. i consider this a serious blow to the man.

 

How cheery to hear that the normal emotions most men would feel would not affect you. Congratulations.

 

the woman decides to give birth

if the woman gives birth and the man wanted her to have the child, and he wants to be a part of the child's life, then he still faces some serious problems. if the couple live together and are content to raise the child together then all is well that ends well. that is of course, if they separate and they cannot come to an agreement on who who will have physical custody of the child.

 

Sorry to sound so old-fashioned. The above quote of yours illustrates why children are best reared in two parent families of emotional and economic stability. I think living together after having a child is a cheap and irresponsible solution. People cannot commit to marriage are really not ready to commit to child-rearing. Children deserve better parents.

 

if the couple cannot decide on the logistics themselves and have to turn to the legal system, then the man is screwed. it doesnt matter if the man obtains the best lawyer on the planet, no judge will ever grant physical custody of a child to man when both parents are fit parents.

 

Not true. I have known it to happen many times. Usually the parent with the most disposable income wins. If you want to make certain you will never lose custody of a child, make money. It will scarcely matter whether you are fit or not. Surely you do understand that justice is for sale.

 

this is not to say that there are laws that specifically favor women in these cases. on the contrary. i know of no statute in the california state family code, or any state for that matter, that specifically favors women over men when both parents are deemed as suitable parents. depending on the type of custody that is awarded to the woman, the man will have limited access to the child. access is further limited when the woman wants to relocate and the new home is remote. in many instances, the court will assign joynt physical and legal custody.

 

In joint custody the access of each parent is limited according to the custody arrangement. Unless the man and woman want to continue in each others company, simple physical reality determines that when the child visits one parent the other is necessarily without the child. Believe me, many parent consider this a great relief.

 

but when one parent decides to relocate and joynt custody is no longer practical for both, the court will assign sole physical and sole legal custody. and usually to the woman. now the man has to suffer with not being able to see the child for long periods of time. needless to say, it is a devastating blow to the father.

 

The courts sometimes mandate that a parent not move so that the other parent may continue to enjoy his/her parental rights. In my opinion, a parent who will move away and leave his/her child behind is not a fit parent in the first place. Having a child is an eighteen year committment. In my opinion, a parent who (barring unusual circumstances) denies the child the company of the other parent is an unfit parent. On the other hand, I believe people who smoke around their children are also unfit. Let's just say I am a little strict.

you compact this with the mandate from the court for the man to pay child support and you have yourselves the begining of the end. surely the responsible, law-abiding man would have paid the support without the prompting of the court but guess what, he now has to live with the humility of knowing that he was ordered to pay. and now people will think that he is a deadbeat parent and the court had to order him to pay support.

 

Courts mandate child support because parents so often don't pay it. They do this in the best interests of the child. They rarely mandate an adequate amount.

 

The financial burden always impacts the man the worst.

 

You choice of the word "always" in the above sentence is rather odd. Why do you assume this.

 

This of course pales in comparison to not seeing the child but it is a blow nonetheless.

 

Supporting one's child is a blessing not a blow.

 

in addition, the child is now forced to live without the father and this of course has the most significant consequences. the father is mature and is able to deal with the tragedy. but the child is not yet able to comprehend what is happening.

 

When we are referring to fit parents, this is indeed a tragedy. Children need both parents. What they do not need is violence and conflict in their lives. A parent who can not resolve differences without blows, stalking, or threats is not a fit parent. If we can agree to that, I think we are on the same page.

 

If the woman gave birth and the man did not want the birth to go through, then you have an all new set of problems. The man will continue his life paying for the child when he wanted no involvement.

 

This is why people should not engage in sex until they have examined the possible consequences and are prepared for these outcomes.

 

Obviously, the man will not contest the custody and he will not be a part of the child’s life but what happens when later in life, he has a change of heart?

 

I would not concern myself with the "heartaches" of someone who would turn his back on a child.

 

He decides he wants to be a part of the child’s life. The least he could hope for is visitation rights. He would have given up the option for joint custody long ago. But since he is still paying support, he may still have some legal footing. This is not likely since when determining custody status, the court always considers the child’s best interests as a priority. Introducing the father to the child could only make things worst for the child. Not to mention that the woman would have likely moved on and found another father figure.

 

Some good thinking in the above paragraph. Nice and consequential.

 

You can also rest assured that when the child is old enough, the mother will undoubtedly tell the child that his original father did not want him born. No matter how you paint this, the child will grow to hate the father. Another blow to the father.

 

Sounds like a child who had to live with this would definitely need some therapy. However, he/she would likely be able to come to these conclusion on his/her own. Fathers who want their children are present in their children's lives.

 

Surely, the decision to give birth or abort must remain with the mother. There is no way around it. But by giving birth, is the mother entitled to hold the best cards afterwards? Should the man necessarily have to suffer the remainder of the child’s life just because he was not capable of giving birth? I think not.

 

Not sure what you mean here. It seems your quarrel may be with Mother Nature. Care to elaborate.

 

The woman has to endure the pregnancy and labor. For that she gets to chose whether to give birth or have an abortion. After that, everything should go down the middle. Things shouldn’t be such a landslide. The man should have more power in this than he does. I will outline some things that can be done to even things up in the next post.

 

Life is not fair, but I look forward to your elaboration.

 

I close this post with one final thought, it is not sufficient to say that the woman needs significant compensation forgiving birth and raising the child. It is not significant to say that she endured much and she should have the power. For any loving father caught in this predicament would gladly say, I would have given birth if my body was capable.

 

Given this previous comment: "deep down inside we're all wimps. except for me of course," I doubt your psychological make up could endure the rush of oxytocin.

 

I would have endured the pain only to have an equal chance at raising the child. I would have gladly raised the child and have asked anything of the mother. I would not have placed any responsibility on her that she did not ask for.

 

Perhaps you are destined to revolutionize male-female relations. So maybe you could stand the oxytocin after all. Altruism is commendable.

 

I look forward to thoughts and comments on this subject. I did not write this with the intention of flaming women.

 

If I were worried about the heat, I'd have stayed clear of the kitchen.

 

I have not experienced this scenario. I do not have children. I can only imagine the torment that men must endure under these circumstances.

 

I kinda figured this.

 

I wrote this post in an hour so I may not have covered everything

 

Actually I think you did very well. The only thing I would advise is the usage of the ENTER key for paragraphing.

[sepultallica]

my friend, you make many good points and id love to discuss them further but, you are still attacking me on a personal level. you should stop because i dont appreciate it. i will respond to you once youve agreed to stop bashing me. oh yeah, and when i learn to post properly. i dont know how to quote certain sections and not entire posts all in one reply yet. i got chewed out by a mod the other day when i posted 200 replies in a row on a thread.

[Coral Rhedd]

 

if the man did not want the woman to have the child and she decides to give birth' date=' the man should be able to walk away from the woman and child and have absolutely no legal responsibility. this should be because the woman already gets to decide whether to keep it or not. the man has no say in it and as such, is placed in a comprimising situation. by this token, if the man later wants to be a part of the child's life he would not be eligible.

 

when there is a dispute over custody of the child and both parents are deemed fit parents by the state; and when joynt physical custody is not an option. the parent that does not obtain custody should not be forced to pay support by the court. this should be because not only are we taking the child away from one parent, we penalize him/her for it by making him/her pay. not only is the other parent get the child, but they get to live off the other unfortunate parent. we should give the parent that did not get custody, the benifit of the doubt. i believe that the obligation to pay support should be a moral one and not a legal one in this instance. it is not sufficient to say that the parent that won custody now has the burden to financially raise the child on his/her own. for the other parent would surely say that he/she would raise the child without asking for anything in return from anyone.

[/quote']

 

Ahhh. And you were doing so well . . .

 

You seem to be missing something here. When a child exists it needs physical, emotional, and financial care. Here's what I propose then. One parent is designated to stay home and care for the child and the other is mandated to provide financial support.

 

Or there is an alternative that would avoid the entire problem. Plenty of people live without sex. Have you tried being abstinent? It would save a whole peck of trouble. It is a useful option for folks living in convents, people whose sex hormones have petered out, and people under the age of 21 who are in no way ready for the responsibilities parenthood brings.

 

Just say "No."

[Sayonara]

Anyone that doesn't understand that sex between a man and woman may result in pregnancy -- barring things like sterilization or years past menopause -- should not engage in sex.

Logical gap:

 

If someone doesn't understand that sex between a man and a woman can result in pregnancy, there is a very good chance that they aren't going to magically abstain from sex for reasons that they don't know about. There's a difference between reasonable expectations, and ideal scenarios.

 

 

Supporting one's child is a blessing not a blow.

That is quite clearly a matter of circumstance and opinion.

[YT2095]

yeah, sadly true on the last part for some.

 

"Supporting one's child is a blessing not a blow." idealy worded would read "Supporting one's child SHOULD BE a blessing, not a blow."

 

unfortunately it`s Idealy worded and not idealy Worlded

[Coral Rhedd]

Logical gap:

 

If someone doesn't understand that sex between a man and a woman can result in pregnancy' date=' there is a very good chance that they aren't going to magically abstain from sex for reasons that they don't know about. There's a difference between reasonable expectations, and ideal scenarios.

[/quote']

 

It still easier to expect idealism from people than it is from law in its practice.

 

A scientific-type bit of social engineering would be more effective. What about birth control implants in all people under 21 on the assumption that these are the people least likely to control their sexual urges and least likely to make good parents if such urges result in pregnancy?

 

Or is that a little fascist?

[Sayonara]

Just a touch, yes.

[Coral Rhedd]

I was just thinking.... Some people think that becoming homosexual has something to do with a lack of a real father figure. Could the “gay movement” have something to do with the rise of single mothers? I’m not trying to start any arguments I’m just speculating.

 

When did the amount of single parents really start to rise?

 

Not long ago my niece would babysit for a nine year old boy named, coincidentally, Lance. He is the son of a world class body builder who is also the local sheriff in her town. He collects guns and has gone to court in a squabble over his right to own an assault rifle. She told me that the moment after his parents would leave Lance would go raid his mother's closet to play dress-up. It seems he was especially fond of her Manolo Blahniks (now that must be a whole other story ) and her silk scarves. If my niece didn't nip his behavior in the bud, he would even put on his mother's bras. It seems Lance's goal in life is to become Nicole Kidman.

 

I don't know what this may say about homosexuality but it sure raises some doubt about the power (not!) of stereotypical behavior as role-modeling.